Why is it, that when someone is good at what they do, they are described as "talented", instead of "skilled"?

@Loli! I agree with you! That’s a first! is a great question.

I had never even thought of that, but I don’t think it’s a conscious behavior. We fall into habit patterns when we speak. Sometimes we inherit phrases from the culture around us and I think this may be the case as well. We often say things that don’t make sense or are not exactly the right word.

To eliminate racism or sexism or disrespectful phrases from our language takes a lot of energy and focus. it’s almost like learning a new language and it requires a lot of hard brain work.

“Talented” is a gift, unlearned. “Skilled” is something learned.

Because it isn’t always clear which influence is the more significant. So the words sometimes are used interchangeably.

All horses can be trained to run, but they breed them from champions in order to give them the genetic influence.

Payton and Eli Manning are great football quarterbacks, but it’s no surprise that their father was Archie Manning, also a great football quarterback. Plenty of kids dream of being an NFL QB, but they didn’t have Archie Manning as a dad.

Etc.

One can be both, simultaneously. It’s really hard to decipher which is more prevalent without knowing a person enough to know what comes naturally and what took training and focus.

I don’t take offense at either one. To me “skilled” means they have a great deal of experience and have become very good at what they do. “Talented” to me is a matter of genetics. Tyrek Hill is an example. He’s a very skilled runner, but he’s also damn talented and that’s something you can’t “learn.” It just is. Not too many people out there could get a speeding ticket running through a school zone, on foot.

This question from 2011 is a good example, I think.

I suppose that if you don’t think about it much, it may sound like higher praise, analogous to putting artistry above craftsmanship. It’s probably meant admiringly, while also—as you suggested—excusing someone else’s (the speaker’s?) inferior performance by implicitly blaming lack of an inborn magical ingredient.

In my opinion, raw talent isn’t worth much by itself; it has to be developed with a lot of work—training, discipline, and guidance. The results are also easily confused (by others) with passion, dedication, and grueling practice. Maybe the talent is a gift for loving something enough to be devoted to mastering it without burning out.

I like Malcolm Gladwell’s collections of anecdotes, even though I don’t regard them as science; and Outliers does a good job of showing what it takes to turn so-called talent into success.

Some talents may be inherited; but on the other hand, what may be happening is that those young people are growing up in an environment that places an extremely high value on the art, music, athleticism, or whatever of the parents, and so those skills are well cultivated. I don’t think you can simply decide to have a great operatic voice; but can you learn to hit a ball? I think so.